Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Can I just skip the entire Anti-Injunction Act section? I think I can. Screw it, I'm skipping it.

[MattFancy]

LKB, once you read everything can you give us a good summary?

[Wrong Direction]

If nothing else, this will increase pressure on Romney and the Republicans to come up with specific alternatives. "Repeal and replace" kind of went away in recent months while the GOP hoped the Supremes would carry their water. Now they'll have to fight the ACA as policy and that will be much harder to do without the "replace" part of the mantra. Be interesting to see what they come up with.

Generally, you're right. However, Ignoring this upcoming election, I think it makes it easier for Republicans to propose changes, in the form of a more limited bill, rather than having to start over. Now R's can say that the federal government won't let small businesses pool together to design their own plans. They're forcing people into Obama's vision of health care. They can fight directly for more interstate purchasing agreements.

In the macro, R's have a hard time making their case because it's not considered universal. In the micro, their policies of more freedom for healthcare purchasers are likely to be more popular. This might become more clear in 2014 and beyond, rather than this year where a full Republican alternative will have to be designed.

[mjah]

But he'd have been with the majority either way.

Unless he perceived some odd dynamic between himself and Kennedy, in which the grounds for his decision would always push Kennedy to the other side. Which would be quite peculiar.

Otherwise, agreed.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

If Roberts had sided with Scalia, et al, I suspect Wickard would have been overturned here. Roberts goes out of his way to protect that precedent, which is interesting.

[Thiebear]

I'll take any ruling that doesn't expand the commerce clause..

[ixcuincle]

Why are you all checking CNN.com? You know websites take time to change titles, right?

Use twitter.

CNN television did have the same thing too, but they changed it. I was watching it while getting ready for work here, so I can tell you right now, that they had it, but they changed it when they realized it was wrong.

And before anyone insults twitter jounalism, keep in mind no one on Twitter didn't jump the gun. So guess what...twitter is actually better than CNN for news. Guess this is the sign of the times

[Stadium-Armory]

So, does this or does this not finally settle the "health care is a right not a privilege" debate?

[ixcuincle]

Anyway, this was a thrilling victory for the Obama side here. The shootout goal by Roberts was amazing. Great win for the liberals, 5-4

[gbear]

mjah,

that odd dynamic might not be so odd if one believes he was trying to preserve the perception of the courts. If he knew it would come out 5-4 in favor, the court looks far better/less political with him on the liberal side and Kennedy on the conservative side. A decision of this magnitude is better accepted if those perceptions aren't reinforced.

[NoVaO]

This conservative doesn't currently have health insurance.

This conservative doesn't believe the federal government can force the purchase of a private product.

This conservative wouldn't receive coverage, he'd receive fines/tax increases.

This conservative takes the above facts and draws the conclusion that the man who would put all that into place doesn't give one jack **** about the "little guy" as he claims.

But yeah, I guess I'm selfish about not wanting to pay for your healthcare, while still not having my own. Oh, and if the government can force you to buy a private product, I hope everyone will be required to purchase a Nissan next. Then I WILL be able to afford my own insurance.

There will be very generous subsidies that you can take advantage of so you can purchase health insurance. This bill is designed in part for those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. This bill is a good thing for you. Democrats did a crappy job selling this law, and the result of that is people simply not knowing what this bill does.

[JMS]

Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause cant compel people into commerce.

So the Supreme Court DID hold that

Which is interesting because in 2005, GONZALES V. RAICH the court found the exact oppisite

Scalia wrote in his opinion that a woman growing MJ for personal use was in fact commerse thusly..

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”[

Here Kennedy and Scalia voted with the majority to find someone not involved in commerse, could still be regulated under the commerse clause...

It will be interesting which case will be precident... I suspect the former because it's backed up by many decisions since the New Deal.

[Teller]

There will be very generous subsidies that you can take advantage of so you can purchase health insurance. This bill is designed in part for those who cannot afford to pay for insurance. This bill is a good thing for you. Democrats did a crappy job selling this law, and the result of that is people simply not knowing what this bill does.

Well sure.

Higher taxes or more government reliance? Great choice.

I love democrats.

[JMS]

Anyway, this was a thrilling victory for the Obama side here. The shootout goal by Roberts was amazing. Great win for the liberals, 5-4

Liberals didn't have a dog in this fight. This was a fight between moderates and extremists on the right. The liberals favor a single payer option which would have been the only "reform" left available to us if the court has blasted Obamacare. Liberals are not at all happy with Obamacare, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, First championed by Nixon (and defeated by liberals), First Implemented into law by Mitt Romney in Ma..

Not at all a victory for liberals.

[NavyDave]

If Roberts had sided with Scalia' date=' et al, I suspect Wickard would have been overturned here. Roberts goes out of his way to protect that precedent, which is interesting.[/quote']

Rush Limbaugh predicted over a week ago, that Roberts was the wildcard to look at as the swing vote on the Arizona Immigration and Obamacare because he wanted a positive image as far as his legacy is concerned. Sucks that he was apparently right.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The first ten or so pages are just the slip. Roberts agreed that the interstate commerce clause cannot compel people into commerce. I imagine Kennedy plus the other three agree.

Very interesting what happened here though. Roberts, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas don't seem to have joined in Roberts' Opinion, even the parts about the interstate commerce clause not being able to compel people to buy insurance. So, I guess the majority opinions are the following:

1. The individual mandate is constitutional under the taxing power of Congress.

2. The individual mandate is not constitutional under the interstate commerce clause, alone.

3. The Medicaid expansion is unconstitutional.

Also, Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito dissented and opined that the entire statute must be thrown out as unconstitutional, e.g. preexisting conditions, 26 years old, etc.

Finally, Scalia absolutely lambasted Roberts. That Scalia... he's such a card.

[Bliz]

Well sure.

Higher taxes or more government reliance? Great choice.

I love democrats.

The higher taxes here come only to those with more government reliance, i.e., the government reliance of not buying your own damn insurance and instead relying on laws that say hospitals have to save your life (at the taxpayers expense) if you need emergency care but can't pay for it.

Pubs used to hate freeloaders.

[JMS]

I'll take any ruling that doesn't expand the commerce clause..

The commerse clause is pretty much wide open and has been since 1937.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Can I just skip the entire Anti-Injunction Act section? I think I can. Screw it' date=' I'm skipping it.[/quote']

Haha.. yea. I did a fast read of a lot of parts, but mostly went to the parts I knew were majorities. I'd have to sit down with this for a while to really get it.

I skipped basically all of Ginsburg's opinion.

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 11:17 AM ----------

Well sure.

Higher taxes or more government reliance? Great choice.

I love democrats.

Where do you see "more government reliance" in this bill? All of the incentive is for you to buy private insurance.

[Baylor Alum]

JMS, Scalia's opinions in Gonzalez and the ACA case are not inconsistent. In Gonzalez, he was addressing Congress' power to regulate noneconomic activity. In the ACA case, he is addressing economic inactivity. The power to regulate interstate commerce presupposes that there is commercial activity to be regulated. Inactivity cannot be regulated.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Liberals didn't have a dog in this fight. This was a fight between moderates and extremists on the right. The liberals favor a single payer option which would have been the only "reform" left available to us if the court has blasted Obamacare. Liberals are not at all happy with Obamacare, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, First championed by Nixon (and defeated by liberals), First Implemented into law by Mitt Romney in Ma..

Not at all a victory for liberals.

Agreed, this bill sucks... but I believe that for vastly different reasons than the tea party.

[Teller]

The higher taxes here come only to those with more government reliance, i.e., the government reliance of not buying your own damn insurance and instead relying on laws that say hospitals have to save your life (at the taxpayers expense) if you need emergency care but can't pay for it.

Pubs used to hate freeloaders.

And we still hate condescending jackasses. Could you show me my unpaid hospital bills please? Could you explain to me what my employers' plan covers for what I pay? Or do you just want to continue your false presumptions?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Ok. Through with the commerce clause section. The world has changed 0 percent. No precedent has been overturned. No expansion of the clause has been made. Roberts is not exactly a revolutionary. I need a drink

JMS, that case you cite is sort of in line with Wickard. Even if your actions don't directly impact interstate commerce, you are still engaged in an activity. And that activity could have a rippled effect into the stream of commerce. It's also kind of a ****ty decision where Scalia cites a case he hates to win an argument. He sucks.

The issue here is whether you can be sitting there doing nothing and Congress can force you into the stream of commerce. The answer is no. On this part.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[greenspandan]

Liberals didn't have a dog in this fight. This was a fight between moderates and extremists on the right. The liberals favor a single payer option which would have been the only "reform" left available to us if the court has blasted Obamacare. Liberals are not at all happy with Obamacare, first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, First championed by Nixon (and defeated by liberals), First Implemented into law by Mitt Romney in Ma..

Not at all a victory for liberals.

exactly. please remember the above post when surfing the seas of hyperbole on facebook and fox news.

one more thing: it's my private hope that this is the "don't ask, don't tell" of health care. it sucks, but it is a necessary stepping stone towards modernity and sanity.

Edited June 28, 2012 by greenspandan

[Bliz]

And we still hate condescending jackasses. Could you show me my unpaid hospital bills please? Could you explain to me what my employers' plan covers for what I pay? Or do you just want to continue your false presumptions?

Not directed at you personally. Take it down a notch.

Let me put it this way instead. Explain how the choice is between higher taxes or more government reliance? Seems to me if you choose higher taxes, you are getting (or have a much greater future opportunity for) higher government reliance along with it. If you choose lower taxes, you are not getting (and have a much less likely future opportunity for) higher government reliance. Why isn't the choice lower taxes or more government reliance?